logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.05.25 2017노5455
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Where there are several orders of the judgment, such as partial conviction and partial acquittal of the case prosecuted for concurrent crimes within the scope of the judgment of this court, the part included in the one part may be appealed separately from other parts, and the part not appealed by both parties becomes final and conclusive. Thus, where only the prosecutor appealeds the part not guilty as to the part of concurrent crimes, the part of the judgment of the first instance which pronounced not guilty or partially guilty as to the part of the defendant and the prosecutor did not appeal is final and conclusive as the period for appeal expires, and the part of the judgment of conviction which was pending in the appellate court is final and conclusive as the period for appeal, and if it is reversed by the appellate court, only the part of the judgment of innocence shall be reversed (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do1402, Jan. 21, 1992). According to the records, the judgment of the court below recognized all of the facts charged of intimidation and judged not guilty as to defamation, and since only the prosecutor only appealed the part of the above acquittal, the scope of the judgment of acquittal shall be limited to the part of the appeal by the prosecutor.

2. In full view of the G’s statement and K’s legal statement in the investigation agency’s summary of the grounds for appeal, the Defendant may sufficiently recognize the facts of defamation by pointing out false facts beyond the simple expression of opinion.

3. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the lower court based on evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., the victim submitted an application and a written agreement to the effect that G was subject to a conflict between the victim and the Defendant at the trial, and that it was a compromise between the victim and the Defendant at the present trial, and N (G) that was a witness at the trial.

arrow